When discussing arguments, truth and validity are two basic concerns. Is it possible for an argument to be valid if it is not truthful? Discuss these two concepts, using truth tables.
2007-01-24 03:45:32 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
I must disagree with the people who said that truth can only support validity! We can come up with truthful and therefore valid arguments against something! Their very attempt to show that we should not have gone to war in Iraq is arguing against it, therefore their valid reasoning proves the war invalid! Thus, truth supports validity. It all depends on how you phrase the question. If the question can be phrased in more than one way, then all true answers must be considered equally true, and all valid answers must be considered equally valid.
24 JAN 07, 2308 hrs, GMT.
2007-01-24 10:04:11 · answer #1 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truth is what validity is based on. If the starting facts (premises) are true and the conclusions are true then the argument is valid.
premises conclusions | validiity
FALSE FALSE | FALSE
FALSE TRUE | FALSE
TRUE FALSE | FALSE
TRUE TRUE | TRUE
This is the same as an AND logic gate
So when George Bush said there were WMDs in Iraq (FALSE)
With a conclusion that we should knock the crap out of Iraq (FALSE)
The validity of going to war is FALSE.
2007-01-24 12:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
valid = reason , objection,sound and defensible. Truth = is state of being true,realistic. I don't think a valid argument can be truthful. A valid argument is not true. This is what I think.
2007-01-24 12:06:17 · answer #3 · answered by ruth4526 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
look at president bush, ? answer'd
2007-01-24 11:52:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋